MONTREAL — Since he was a child, Gérald Chouinard knew he wanted to be a scientist. He fulfilled that dream for three decades, researching alternatives to pesticides in Quebec, until his work was cut short eight years ago. Chouinard was in his mid-50s when he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Three years later, in 2022, his diagnosis was recognized to be a work illness after exposure to pesticides. “It’s a little ironic — that I worked to reduce risks related to pesticides and it made me ill,” he told The Canadian Press in an interview. Now, he is petitioning the federal government to stop what he sees as a weakening of pesticide regulation and is asking them to follow the science. Chouinard’s petition, which has over 13,500 signatures, is asking the governments to reverse what advocates describe as a trend to weaken oversight of the use of pesticides across the country. The petition takes aim at legislation they warn will weaken the federal Pest Control Products Act. Bill C-30, which was passed in June 2026, amended the Act to allow cabinet to override Health Canada and authorize the use of banned pesticides in the interest of economic or national food security, or in response to “seriously detrimental infestation.” Bill C-31, which is under review, would eliminate mandatory reviews of the health and environmental risks of pesticides. The petition asks the government to repeal the changes made by C-30 and remove those proposed by C-31. Chouinard’s right hand trembled as he spoke to The Canadian Press on an October morning, detailing his research and the illness he developed as a result. Chouinard spent around three decades exposed to dozens of chemical pesticides. “I was like most people, I was confident that the regulatory system was reliable, that it was good,” he said. Chouinard no longer works, as his symptoms — which include difficulty sleeping, trembling and low energy — make it hard to keep a job, he said. “But I stay active for a cause that’s important to me: to help people understand that pesticides are of course dangerous, but also that Canadian systems ensuring the safety of those products are important,” he said. When he learned about the changes that bills C-30 and C-31 were bringing to pesticide regulation, he was stunned, he said. “The Quebec government paid me a salary for 30 years for me to reduce pesticide use. And now, I’m seeing a bill that proposes a weakening of the (oversight) systems,” he said. Around half of the products that Chouinard was exposed to before he developed Parkinson’s disease were banned following the mandatory reviews of their environmental and health impacts. Those products could now return to the market through the override authorized by bill C-30. “I’m a scientist, I think this process should be led by science. Not by lobbies, not by politics, by science,” he said. Chouinard was in Ottawa on Tuesday to speak out against the changes to pesticide regulations. He joined a coalition that included Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and Bloc Québécois MP Maxime Blanchette-Joncas. Health Minister Marjorie Michel dismissed concerns about the changes during question period in the House of Commons. “I would say the health and safety of Canadians will always remain our top priority. But we can do this while supporting our agriculture sector and cutting red tape,” she said. Chouinard said industry professionals like him, who interact most closely with pesticides, will be the first impacted by lower oversight. “We don’t want our producers to be exposed to risks unnecessarily,” he said. In a press conference, May criticized the Carney government’s environmental policy and accused it of being “in the pocket of the pesticide lobby.” “It’s not too late for Canadians to rise up and ask this government, I’ll be blunt, what the hell is going on here?” she said. In an email to the Canadian Press, Health Department spokesperson Alexandre Bergeron said the government’s proposed changes would allow federal officials to focus on the biggest risks. “These changes will help reduce backlogs and ensure regulatory resources are focused on higher-risk products and emerging concerns, rather than automatically reviewing products simply because 15 years have passed,” wrote Bergeron. Chouinard dismissed the idea that reducing reviews would help cut down on bureaucracy. “We hear about reducing useless bureaucracy, but that is not what we’re looking at here. This is essential work,” he said. — With files from Pierre St-Arnaud This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 20, 2026. Marieke Glorieux-Stryckman, The Canadian Press
